[DRAFT] International Appellate Court Act - Updated May 2016

[Dragonyza]

Uh, the committee only rule hasn't been broken. It does more than create a committee. The committee is a minor part of of the proposal.

So far, still not illegal.

[Point Breeze]

Uh, the committee only rule hasn't been broken. It does more than create a committee. The committee is a minor part of of the proposal.

So far, still not illegal.

what a convincing argument. allow me to provide another.

I guess clause 4, since it requires nations to take action on cases remanded to them from the appellate court, makes the proposal legal and gets it around the committee only rule.

The Nation of Point Breeze,

Re-affirming her belief that this resolution is an undue intrusion into the sovereignty of individual nations and practical application of said act will be detrimental to the daily functions of national court systems.

Hereby,

Announces general disapproval of this act and

Clarifies the above advice is provided free of charge^TM and does not necessarily imply support of said act.

[Araraukar]

I guess clause 4, since it requires nations to take action on cases remanded to them from the appellate court, makes the proposal legal and gets it around the committee only rule.

IF it does. Basically what it says is "committee [court] does this [returns the case to the nation] and you must obey".

[Point Breeze]

I guess clause 4, since it requires nations to take action on cases remanded to them from the appellate court, makes the proposal legal and gets it around the committee only rule.

IF it does. Basically what it says is "committee [court] does this [returns the case to the nation] and you must obey".

It would be a shaky precedent to set, were it ruled legal.

[Moronist Decisions]

1. ALLOW individuals to appeal their convictions.

Duplicates GAR#202

And frankly, it's poorly structured, and I don't see the need for an international appealate court either. I also don't see any mandates that aren't tied to the court.

[Dragonyza]

OOC: Currently going through a rewrite.

[Dragonyza]

I have submitted this proposal with some minor formatting changes, including the declaration being placed above the definitions.

[Alqania]

"Looks like it still has all the same problems as it did 16 months ago", commented Lord Raekevik.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

2. DEFINE suspension of legal rights as:

The process by which a state, national, or military government unlawfully bars the right to, but not limited to, a fair trial, due process, right to representation, or any other right contained in current General Assembly law.

This sentence as written (see emphases) seems to indicate that if a prisoner pending trial is wrongfully denied one mail call, for whatever reason, he could then put our entire government on trial. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that the court probably wouldn't take the case with much more serious violations pending, but nothing in here seems to give the justices the power to deny certification outright.


Also, this piece of commentary, and its apparently not having been overruled in the submitted version, ought to give serious pause to every person in this chamber:

"I say the entire government, from top to bottom!"

Yes,

The entire government would be held accountable.

Ye gods.

So if Judge Mumia Sabo's court in Illadelphia allegedly robs a suspect of his rights at trial, but no other court in the land sees it that way, and the case reaches this court, what happens? Does Judge Pritchard Rosner halfway across the country have to chip in to the kitty to help pay the fine? Would I and all my colleagues get fired, as we are clearly agents of the same government that allowed Judge Sabo to sit the bench? Do we have to hold elections? Is merely replacing every single person in the government acceptable, or do we have to hold a constitutional convention? Or can the House of Scrum just cut a big honkin' check? The possible scope in play here is extremely disturbing, if not outright illegal under the most basic WA principles of national sovereignty.*

The idea isn't necessarily awful, though even a carefully crafted and extremely precise version would be hard-pressed to avoid overreach and gross violations of just nations' judicial independence; this execution of it is like sending a flock of jet fighters through a hot air balloon festival. Therefore we must oppose.

*

*OOC: I believe that is the first time I've ever justifed my lack of support for anything, let alone a human rights law(!), by appealing to that much-bandied, somewhat abused concept. I'd have to check.

[Ainocra]

I remember this tripe now. We find this just as ludicrous as the last time you brought it up.

My honest advice is to scrap the idea Ambassador.

On behalf of Osiris we are Opposed.

ooc:

I had actually forgotten this. would that it could have remained in the mists of memory.

[Sainterre]

Against. We do not believe that the World Assembly has the right to interfere in the domestic legal processes of Sainterre. OOC: Last I checked, this wasn't in queue. Consider renaming it as just a proposal.

[Dragonyza]

Against. We do not believe that the World Assembly has the right to interfere in the domestic legal processes of Sainterre. OOC: Last I checked, this wasn't in queue. Consider renaming it as just a proposal.

I got my terms mixed up, my apologies. I don't think there is a term for when it's awaiting approval.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Usually, it's:
[DRAFT]
[SUBMITTED]
[IN QUEUE]
[AT VOTE]
[PASSED]

Yours is currently at the [SUBMITTED] stage. Doesn't make much difference though. :)

[Ainocra]

Against. We do not believe that the World Assembly has the right to interfere in the domestic legal processes of Sainterre. OOC: Last I checked, this wasn't in queue. Consider renaming it as just a proposal.

I got my terms mixed up, my apologies. I don't think there is a term for when it's awaiting approval.

OOC:

no worries

[Abazhaka]

right of the bat, this is a bad idea. opposed no matter what.

[Railana]

This proposal is illegal for violating section 7 of GAR #312, On Universal Jurisdiction, which reads:

Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

By establishing an international appellate court to review all cases where "egregious wrongdoing" has been committed by a member state, this proposal could potentially preempt a member state's right to prosecute an individual under GAR #312.

Even if this proposal were legal, we would nonetheless be opposed, as we strongly disapprove of the notion of rendering national criminal justice systems subordinate to an international tribunal.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassaodor, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

This proposal is illegal for violating section 7 of GAR #312, On Universal Jurisdiction, which reads:

Forbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state's claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution, to the extent permitted by this and previous World Assembly resolutions;

By establishing an international appellate court to review all cases where "egregious wrongdoing" has been committed by a member state, this proposal could potentially preempt a member state's right to prosecute an individual under GAR #312.

Even if this proposal were legal, we would nonetheless be opposed, as we strongly disapprove of the notion of rendering national criminal justice systems subordinate to an international tribunal.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassaodor, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"No doubt because you and yours would prefer to punish egregious violations of the WA laws you dislike with a slap on the wrist. Nevertheless, I'm surprised it took this long for the contradiction illegality to be discovered. I was curious to see if some of our newer ambassadors would notice."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm surprised it took this long for the contradiction illegality to be discovered

OOC: It didn't.

[Dragonyza]

OOC: Also, it doesn't.

The last clause in GAR 312 allows the GA to pass further legislation, and because this doesn't pre-empt any claims, it doesn't violate GAR 312.

This is an Appellate Court, not the Secret Police. It creates an international Court of Appeal IF there is evidence a trial was forced for political reasons, or what have you.

Picking and choosing which clauses to enforce is getting a bit tiresome.

[Railana]

OOC: Also, it doesn't.

The last clause in GAR 312 allows the GA to pass further legislation, and because this doesn't pre-empt any claims, it doesn't violate GAR 312.

This is an Appellate Court, not the Secret Police. It creates an international Court of Appeal IF there is evidence a trial was forced for political reasons, or what have you.

Picking and choosing which clauses to enforce is getting a bit tiresome.

((OOC: Actually, the purpose of the last clause is to ensure that resolutions about the topics the clause lists can continue to be passed, and that the resolution does not close off those topics for legislation outright. The clause does not authorize direct contradictions of the resolution; that is an absurd interpretation.

By the way, I have just filed a GHR against the proposal, so I suppose we'll find out who the mods believe are right shortly.))

[Ardchoille]

By the way, I have just filed a GHR against the proposal, so I suppose we'll find out who the mods believe are right shortly.))

Thank you for doing it early. Dragonyza, if, as expected, this submission fails ( Status: Lacking Support (requires 67 more approvals) Voting Ends: in 10 hours) please don't re-submit this until we've seen, and discussed, Railana's objections. (Haven't seen the GHR yet, I'll alert the others, I'm going to bed.)

I should emphasise that the ruling DSR quoted was my opinion alone. While I continue to support it, other mods have not looked at that aspect in detail yet. While waiting for that, Dragonyza should look at and amend the other problems the Silly and Illegal thread posters and others have raised, particularly the branding problem (easily fixed by meeting the full technical requirement) and the Committee problems (possibly fixable in part by rearranging clauses; duplication has been raised; further player comment welcome).

My apologies for commenting in S&I when a drafting thread already existed. As it was started in December last year, it had fallen off the front page. Drafters usually post on submission to ensure their thread shows up.

[Abazhaka]

this law is a bad idea since it violates on of the key ideas behind NatSov, but the need for an international court to mediate disputes between two parties from different member nations disputes. that said I am considering proposing my own proposal for an international court to mediate disagreements in which member nations are involved.

[Dragonyza]

this law is a bad idea since it violates on of the key ideas behind NatSov, but the need for an international court to mediate disputes between two parties from different member nations disputes. that said I am considering proposing my own proposal for an international court to mediate disagreements in which member nations are involved.

So, you're threadjacking to promote your own proposal?

[Defwa]

His non proposal at that.

And so what if a proposal violates your concept of national sovereignty. The WA is designed to that.
It's the entire point.

[Abazhaka]

this law is a bad idea since it violates on of the key ideas behind NatSov, but the need for an international court to mediate disputes between two parties from different member nations disputes. that said I am considering proposing my own proposal for an international court to mediate disagreements in which member nations are involved.

So, you're threadjacking to promote your own proposal?

no, I am more asking to team up with you to create a proposal of a similar nature. sorry if I came across like a threadjacker.